The Honourable William Francis Seymour, Earl of Yarmouth v Ragley Trust Company Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 1099 (Ch).
Aristocrats arguing over the destiny of £40 million (or more) of heritage assets naturally caught the attention of the press when this case reached trial earlier in the year. The Claimant, the Earl of Yarmouth, is the eldest son and heir of the current Marquess of Hertford. The Defendants were Lord and Lady Hertford, their three other adult children, and the trustees of a number of trusts holding various elements of the family seat – Ragley Hall. At its heart it's a sad story of disappointed expectations (on both sides) tearing a family apart.
The Earl complained that he had been told by his parents and the trustees that, at the age of 30, he would be handed stewardship of the Ragley estate. But, at the age of 31 it has not happened. He puts that down, in no small part, to his parents' dislike of his wife.
The Marquess, by contrast, expressed disappointment that the Earl had failed to finish his degree at agricultural college and said he no longer considered his eldest son the right person to take over the estate. And it was common ground that in 2018 the Earl had written a (badly received) letter to his mother questioning his father's cognitive ability. The tensions in the family, almost inevitably, spilled over into the Earl's relationship with the trustees of the Ragley Trusts, and it is that aspect which came to be litigated.
The Earl sought removal of the trustees on various grounds including that (i) their strategy and approach to the administration of the estate failed to achieve acceptable returns; (ii) their approach to an issue regarding access to land belonging to the Earl demonstrated their inability to cooperate with him; (iii) they were under the influence of Lord and Lady Hertford; (iv) they had entered into, and failed to properly communicate with the beneficiaries about, certain invalid Deeds; and (v) he had lost trust and confidence in the trustees.
The trustees strenuously denied any wrongdoing, but told the court that they would not cling to office if the court considered they should stand aside.
Having raked over the detail of the family tensions, the court determined that the allegations of misconduct against the trustees were not well-founded and that the trustees had 'acted professionally throughout and are capable of continuing to do so'.
Of particular interest is the judge's approach to the suggestion that the relationship between the Earl and the trustees was so damaged that the trustees should be removed.
The relevance of hostility in the test for removing a trustee is supposedly clear. Mere hostility between a trustee and beneficiary is not enough to justify removal. However, if that hostility impedes the smooth administration of the trust then it may well be enough.
That leaves open the possibility that a disgruntled beneficiary may be able to manufacture circumstances in which a court will remove entirely innocent trustees. And given the potential risk of personal liability, trustees will often accede to a request that they retire even where it is not clearly in the interests of the beneficiaries as a whole that they should do so.
This judgment is interesting because it is a (comparatively rare) example of the court tackling that issue head on. The judge went as far as to say 'I consider that the claimant... was likely looking for ammunition for a dispute' and that 'Lord Yarmouth was keen to create a dispute about the way Ragley was run at a root and branch level.' He then concluded 'the trustees have given [Lord Yarmouth] no objective grounds to come to the view that they will not deal with him in a professional and co-operative manner. My conclusion is that the subjective view that the claimant has reached to the effect that he cannot deal with the trustees is a feature of the damaged and fractured relationship he now has with his parents. That does not itself mean that either side is unable to deal with the other, nor that the welfare of the beneficiaries as a whole will be compromised, whether or not the claimant elects to do so.'
Undoubtedly the fact that the trustees had the support of the rest of the family was a significant factor, which will not be present in every case. Nor will a disgruntled beneficiary's attempt to manufacture a dispute always be so transparent, or the court so willing to find artificiality. A trustee facing a removal application will almost always be advised to say it will stand aside if the court deems that appropriate, but this judgment may fortify trustees (and supportive beneficiaries) seeking at the same time to persuade the court that removal is not the appropriate or necessary response when faced with a disgruntled beneficiary.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
